Matrix Games Forums

Not sure if I understand fortresses. I thought they behaved like trenches, but maybe not. I've had several instances where forces defending in hexes with fortresses were crushed by attackers with only a slight advantage. Most recently I saw 3 russian corps attack Konigsberg which was defended by 2 german corps (class A); the russians were beaten off, but the germans suffered horrendous casualties (almost twice what the russians suffered). The firepower was almost identical, there was no barrage, and the defneders were defending a fort; shouldn't the attackers have suffered more?

My guess is that everyone could not fit into the forts[;)]. Seriously though, the other defending corps would be dependent upon their own entrenchment levels, or other factors.

An historical example would be at Verdun. During the great battle there in '16, the French forces lost far more men than the Germans, but they held. This was the case even though they (the French) had multiple, large, prewar fortresses in the area. There can be no doubt that the forts caused many German casualties-just not enough to offset the total loss ratio.

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Not sure if I understand fortresses. I thought they behaved like trenches, but maybe not. I've had several instances where forces defending in hexes with fortresses were crushed by attackers with only a slight advantage. Most recently I saw 3 russian corps attack Konigsberg which was defended by 2 german corps (class A); the russians were beaten off, but the germans suffered horrendous casualties (almost twice what the russians suffered). The firepower was almost identical, there was no barrage, and the defneders were defending a fort; shouldn't the attackers have suffered more?

I find readiness can be easy to neglect. I guess if those Germans had just moved in & not rested they might have been vulnerable?

Ultimately casualties are die roll....on average fortresses are a great help......but sometimes the dice gods are just pissed at you and occasionally you'll get a crap roll and the other guy will get a good one.  [X(]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

An historical example would be at Verdun. During the great battle there in '16, the French forces lost far more men than the Germans, but they held. This was the case even though they (the French) had multiple, large, prewar fortresses in the area. There can be no doubt that the forts caused many German casualties-just not enough to offset the total loss ratio.

Yes and no.

During 1915, most of the gun had been withdrew from the forts because the French thought that what happened to Liege meant fortress were no longer usefull. It was also because they desesperatly needed heavy gun in the field army.

The whole battle of Verdun concerned only a couple of forts among the dozen in the "périmètre fortifié" of Verdun (lot's of them were obsolete) and the fort taken were almost not defended at all (that was especially the case with Douaumont).

Also fortress rating is related to balance I think. Metz should be stronger while Paris should be far less powerfull (the "camp retranché de paris" was definitly obsolete when the war began) and the 2 town in the Italian/Austrian border should have descent fortification (they have none in the game).

Yes the fortifications around Paris were not as strong as the 4 in the game, the garrison was thinking it couldn't stand a german attack and the French High Command did not plan to defend the city at all. Only last minute they were able to get some reserves and african troops to defend the capitol. Well, those troops were able to attack when Klucks army chased the retreating French 5th Army and had nothing to guard his open flank. 

I can attest to the power of the fortress. Just over 100 firepower of German A troops (full readiness, which is pretty much necessary to get that kind of firepower) against the almighty 3 firepower of the French holding Verdun! It was a slaugher house, I think I lost something like 20 strength points and still failed to take the place.

Paris was massively fortified in WW1 - the germans just never reached it - although they got within several muiles of some of the outermost works.  The guns were removed in 1915 to form the backbone of the French heavy artillery.  The works were old, but they were numerous and there wre a lot of troops in hte "Paris armed camp" - I am unaware of any plans to leave it an open city - the governement left it but exhorted it's citizens to fight - see http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/par ... mation.htm

See http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_ ... rts_00.htm

Nothing I read, including the above link, ever suggested that Paris was among the greatest fortress in the world (that's what it is in the game). On the contrary, I was under the impression that the French leaders didn't trust the forts of the armed camp. Emergency works were executed when the situation worsened.
 
What about the fortification in the Austrian alps ?

Liege was considered to be a heavy armored fortress. The Germans especially built their siege artillery for that fort (and they also got some big guns from Austria). So Liege is pretty much the highest fortification that should be included in the game. The Paris area was fortified, but not nearly as much as Liege. But in the game both are level 4 if I'm correct. Paris should be a 2 like e.g. Metz. 

Generally speaking about combat - not only vs. fortresses.
Look at the picture: I cannot figure out how Triple Entente (the french) won the battle.
They had less readiness, less quality, barely equal firepower, they took more casualties and nevertheless they took the hex.
I would enjoy more informations about combat routines...

Paris had a lot of forts - many more than Liege and over a wider area. The Liege forts were not particularely modern in 1914 - the last of them was completed in 1892, construction having been started in 1880, and htey had not been modernised since. There were 12 forts at Liege, and 29 at Paris - of which the outer 15 had been constructed after the Franco-Prussian war, so were not a lot older than the Liege forts.

The French were considering demolishing the inner 14 when war broke out, but the experience at Verdun showed that even older forts could be very tough to take.

Liege has become a bit of a WW1 myth......in fact 1 fort was taken by infantry assault and another was put out of action by "normal" artillery fire before the big guns were bought up. Its guns were obsolete (and Krupp was contracted to replace them), and the Germans could certainly have taken it without the big guns and probably in a similar time frame (10 days) - it just would have cost them more casualties.

It's resistance was a great fillip to allied morale, but it was not the world's best fort anymore and hadn't been for some years.

It was revolutionary when it was built mainly because it had overhead cover for all its guns, however many of hte Paris forts had turrets and casemated added in modernisations in the 1890's and 1900's too - armoured turrets had been added to some of htem as late as 1910. You can view plans and comments about them at http://membres.lycos.fr/bravo20/fortif.htm - it's in french but there's not much text and babelfish is your friend!

Paris would have been entirely comparable to Liege...only bigger, with modern guns, more guns and more troops around it.

I can't really comment on the Austrian forts - I know they had them and they aren't represented....but then there are Greek, Romanian and Turkish fortifications not shown too.

ORIGINAL: Radagy

Generally speaking about combat - not only vs. fortresses.
Look at the picture: I cannot figure out how Triple Entente (the french) won the battle.
They had less readiness, less quality, barely equal firepower, they took more casualties and nevertheless they took the hex.
I would enjoy more informations about combat routines...

they seem have more than twice as much (2.6x) troops.

Yes there's a little note in the manual that the defender might retreat if the "remaining attackers far outnumber the defenders"...I guess 51 remaining vs 15 remaining is enough!

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes there's a little note in the manual that the defender might retreat if the "remaining attackers far outnumber the defenders"...I guess 51 remaining vs 15 remaining is enough!

True, but I would enjoy clearer informations. By WW1 standards 3:1 was not "far outnumbering" but the minumum required attacker/defender ratio to attack.
Far outnumbering means approximately 3:1; 4:1; 5:1? Does quality and readiness of attacker/defender change this ratio? Do Fortresses change this ratio?
I really think they are capital informations to know, don't you agree?

And now look at this other screen.
Triple Entente inflicted 50% more losses to Central Powers (14 vs. 21) and the attack failed....
May be on Western front the attacker is required to inflict 51% more losses (not 50%) in order to capture the hex?

I generally prefer vague statements rather than knowing hte exact formulae required - I find some players tend to try to make use of formulae to get exact results when there should be no such thing in war.

ORIGINAL: Radagy

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes there's a little note in the manual that the defender might retreat if the "remaining attackers far outnumber the defenders"...I guess 51 remaining vs 15 remaining is enough!

True, but I would enjoy clearer informations. By WW1 standards 3:1 was not "far outnumbering" but the minumum required attacker/defender ratio to attack.
Far outnumbering means approximately 3:1; 4:1; 5:1? Does quality and readiness of attacker/defender change this ratio? Do Fortresses change this ratio?
I really think they are capital informations to know, don't you agree?

And now look at this other screen.
Triple Entente inflicted 50% more losses to Central Powers (14 vs. 21) and the attack failed....
May be on Western front the attacker is required to inflict 51% more losses (not 50%) in order to capture the hex?

I think there are different standards for winning a battle on the West front than everywhere else. Maybe that explains the different results.

One problem with the results is that it only displays an average.  High casualties and readiness loss may look bad but one or more of the units on a side could be just fine.  Originally I wanted to display more information here and break it down for each individual corps but there's only so much room available so I decided to go with averages even though averages may not reflect the actual outcome in some cases.  I tried to explain combat in greater detail in the manual in order to provide what the screen doesn't show.

And yes, fortifications increase the chances of a defender holding the hex regardless of casualties, because its the effect I wanted.  Fortresses provide something to "hang on to" at the local level unlike the Russian steppes so the same retreat formulas don't apply.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I generally prefer vague statements rather than knowing hte exact formulae required - I find some players tend to try to make use of formulae to get exact results when there should be no such thing in war.

I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it.
Dice rolls and random factors are just here to prevent players from getting exact results.
In my opinion disclosing formulae would not spoil the game.